beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In other words, there is no fact that a recording device was installed in order to record a conversation between auditors and audit-related employees, including the defendant, in a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with D's employees subject to audit and inspection, and there is no fact that a recording device was installed in order to record a conversation between auditors and audit-related employees including the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "recording machine"). Thus, the act of the defendant who installed a recording device in the audit and inspection book does not constitute an act of recording a conversation between others that was not disclosed.
The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, six months of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Article 3(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that no recording or listening to conversations between others that are not open to the public shall be recorded or heard except as otherwise provided by law, and Article 16(1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act provides that a person (No. 1) who recorded a conversation between others that is not open to the public in violation of Article 3 is punished
The purport of prohibiting recording or listening to a conversation between others that is not open to the public is that a third party who does not participate in the conversation from the original point of view shall not record or listen to the speech between others.
(See) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the foregoing legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do16404, May 16, 2014). The Defendant’s act of installing a tape recorder in an auditor’s book constitutes “an act of recording conversations between others that are not open to the public,” and the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.
The defendant did not obtain the consent of D employees for the purchase and installation of a recording machine, and the head of the appointment team I raised an objection.